Inaccuracies in Guardian website Q&A on bank charges

[Fred_Funk]

Saw a piece on The Guardian website...

Q&A: Bank charges | Money | guardian.co.uk

... which, to my mind, isn't entirely accurrate. I've already emailed money.editor@guardianulim ited.co.uk in the hope that it'll get amended.

Hilary

Hi. I’m writing with regard to your Q&A: Bank charges, which was published on the Guardian website yesterday.

There are a couple points which, IMO, aren’t quite correct.

(1) Under ‘How much can I get back?’, you suggest that if the OFT decides, for instance, that charges should not exceed £12 – as it did with credit cards – then one will be able to reclaim anything above that. However, it’s not quite that simple – either the charges are lawful or they’re not. The OFT may well suggest £12 represents a reasonable reflection of the bank’s costs but if the charges are deemed unlawful then, regardless of this (and what the banks may like you to believe), historic charges will be reclaimable in their entirety.

(2) You say: ‘Claims can only go back six years’. Again, this isn’t strictly true. If you have reason to believe a charge may be unlawful then you have six years from the point when you became aware of this to challenge the claim in court. This means you can claim back way beyond six years – as many people already have done with both bank and credit card charges – if you can demonstrate that you’ve only just become aware that they may be unlawful.

I’m no legal expert – most of my knowledge is gleaned from the Consumer Action Group website – but I am quite certain about the above and do hope you can amend the answers on your website in order that Guardian readers are as well informed as possible.

Thanking you in anticipation
Fred_Funk

Maybe one or two of my fellow CAG-gers could do the same and, with a little luck, the Guardian will put things right.

Fred_Funk